Labs are the heart of scientific discovery, where researchers work tirelessly to develop life-saving cures, groundbreaking medical treatments and innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges. From fighting deadly diseases to tackling environmental crises, these spaces fuel progress and push the boundaries of what is possible. But what happens when the funding that keeps them running is suddenly at risk?
The National Institutes of Health funds labs through direct and indirect costs. Direct costs provide money for project-specific equipment, while indirect costs support essential expenses like facilities and administrative costs—covering rent, utilities and general equipment necessary for research.
Many researchers across the country were alarmed when the Trump administration proposed capping indirect research costs at 15%, a move that would significantly cut the funding keeping thousands of labs running. Without adequate indirect cost funding, universities would struggle to maintain the infrastructure needed for federally funded research.
In a dramatic legal turn, a federal judge halted the plan, giving scientists a temporary sigh of relief. However, with billions of dollars and the future of medical breakthroughs on the line, the battle over research funding is far from over.
“Indirect costs are extremely instrumental in ensuring that I can conduct high-quality research,” an anonymous 2020 FHS alumna and recent UCLA graduate said. “My lab uses many mice models to nominate new genes that should be targeted for cardiometabolic diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Indirect costs make all of this a reality.”
At institutions like Stanford University, the impact of this cap would be substantial. Currently, for every $100 Stanford receives in direct research funding from the NIH, it also receives $54 in indirect funding. Under the proposed 15% cap, this indirect funding would be drastically reduced, cutting Stanford’s NIH support by approximately $160 million per year.
“The indirect costs also pay for environmental health and safety,” an anonymous Stanford University principal investigator said. “If funds are cut, that would mean that there would be less regulatory or safety oversight. In certain labs that can create many dangerous and possibly life-threatening situations.”
A coalition of 22 states, including California, has filed a legal challenge against this proposed cap, arguing that it violates explicit directions from Congress outlined in the federal budget.
“Reduced funding for labs would significantly hinder the advancement of medical and scientific research,” the alumna said. “It would send a rippling effect across all stages of research, and unfortunately, patients would ultimately be the ones suffering the most.”
The situation remains dynamic, with ongoing legal proceedings and discussions among research institutions, government agencies and policymakers. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of scientific research and innovation in the U.S.
“As someone who wants to pursue a career in medical research, I’m scared,” FHS sophomore Avani Malunjkar said. “Without the proper funding, it may be harder to get to these opportunities for my generation and other generations after.”
University leaders emphasize that government support for research performed at universities provides the foundation for the country’s scientific and innovation ecosystem. Severely cutting research funding, through indirect costs or otherwise, makes it harder for universities to create that environment and attract talent essential to groundbreaking discovery.
Proponents of the proposed cap argue that limiting indirect costs could make research funding more efficient by ensuring a greater proportion of grant money goes directly toward experiments and scientific inquiry. Some policymakers believe that current indirect cost rates are too high and that universities should seek alternative funding sources for administrative and facility expenses.
“Policymakers need to understand that research must be conducted in a safe space,” the PI said. “A lot of discoveries are made in basic research that eventually end up as drugs or therapeutics to treat people. After this policy is enforced you’re going to have fewer companies being started because there is less research being conducted. Thus discoveries and innovation in academic lives will dwindle.”
While some argue that the proposed cap could encourage universities to find more cost-effective ways to support research, others warn that it may limit scientific advancements. The final decision will likely have lasting implications for universities, industries and aspiring researchers nationwide.
Disclaimer: sources’ identities are kept anonymous to protect their employment status
